paswt Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Because it is a property tax. That in itself is very lame justification for implementing it unfairly So if there was a flat charge per head, that would mean a tax capper in a mansion would pay the same as a single parent on minimum wage. Is that fair? Can't see a problem with that provided an individuals income was taken into account , or a local income tax, would you consider that a fairer option ( a single parent on minimum wage would then probably pay nothing) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 All I see is people who are asset rich who object to taxes on assets when they have the option, if they don't like same, to divest of those assets or a proportion of them by downsizing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Because it is a property tax. That in itself is very lame justification for implementing it unfairly So if there was a flat charge per head, that would mean a tax capper in a mansion would pay the same as a single parent on minimum wage. Is that fair? Can't see a problem with that provided an individuals income was taken into account , or a local income tax, would you consider that a fairer option ( a single parent on minimum wage would then probably pay nothing) ? Not really. You have dealt with the bottom end as the minimum wager would be exempt, but I still think the tax capper in a mansion should make a greater contribution and commensurately down the scale with an element of that dictated by the amenity of the property everyone owns and lives in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 The debate here is that the current system is outmoded, increasingly unfair and needs reviewing. I've reviewed it for you, you'll like my conclusion. Conclusion: only intelligent people should pay taxes. Your right,I do like your conclusion,do let us know when you feel you fit that category and we'll arrange for the fitting of one of those new fangled intelligence meters you referred to earlier. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 There is only one way to sort this..................................... As Harry Hill would say, FIGHT!................................. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 All I see is people who are asset rich who object to taxes on assets when they have the option, if they don't like same, to divest of those assets or a proportion of them by downsizing. Ah I see where you are coming from now Woolley. You object to anyone who has more assets (a more desirable house for example?) than you and irrespective of their income they should be obliged to lose that asset or downsize in order to make you feel better. Some folk inherit money ,some start out with nothing and by working hard , taking chances, making sacrifices and having a bit of luck have made a few quid. Others take the easy option and the 'safe job' ,steady pension etc. (and good luck to them) and enjoy a modest lifestyle . However it's a bit sad when they begrudge those who they perceive have "more " than they have and advocate that they should be penalised . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Because it is a property tax. That in itself is very lame justification for implementing it unfairly So if there was a flat charge per head, that would mean a tax capper in a mansion would pay the same as a single parent on minimum wage. Is that fair? Can't see a problem with that provided an individuals income was taken into account , or a local income tax, would you consider that a fairer option ( a single parent on minimum wage would then probably pay nothing) ? Not really. You have dealt with the bottom end as the minimum wager would be exempt, but I still think the tax capper in a mansion should make a greater contribution and commensurately down the scale with an element of that dictated by the amenity of the property everyone owns and lives in. Would not the" tax capper" be a net contributor to the Manx economy through tax and probably employ quite a few in maintaining his/her mansion ? Can't really see the "tax capper" being a drain on the services provided by the "rates" or is it that these rich people and those in houses a bit posher than mine need teaching a lesson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 When you own a large property or plan to buy one you have to factor in certain things to see if it is actually affordable. The rate bill being one along with things like; can you afford the heating, the insurance, the cost of furnishing a large number of rooms, the maintenance etc etc etc, just because someone has inherited a large property does not mean that can ignore these things. They all need paying and of all of them, the Rates are the main one to pay first in an inheriting situation, just to keep a, possibly leaky, roof over your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 PASWT, agree, envy tax is what some are proposing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 When you own a large property or plan to buy one you have to factor in certain things to see if it is actually affordable. The rate bill being one along with things like; can you afford the heating, the insurance, the cost of furnishing a large number of rooms, the maintenance etc etc etc, just because someone has inherited a large property does not mean that can ignore these things. They all need paying and of all of them, the Rates are the main one to pay first in an inheriting situation, just to keep a, possibly leaky, roof over your head. LOL tell me Blade Runner do you own a large property? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Would not the" tax capper" be a net contributor to the Manx economy through tax and probably employ quite a few in maintaining his/her mansion ? The problem is that its the taxed crappers, who are now paying for the tax cappers. I think there is no doubt that the low and average income earners are now taking the full burden of the extra new taxes - rates going up, waste charges, sewage charges, student fees, and car parking fees etc. If they put tax rates up which is the sensible option to plug the financial hole it would affect the rich disproportionately. But the easy choice seems to be to screw everybody at a grass roots level through pathetic surcharges to park or have a crap so we don't have to put up tax and piss off the wealthy and the tax cappers (of which there aren't many) who they think might leave. There's more to come yet. This is starting to be the beginning of a real squeeze on normal people so the rich can get off relatively unscathed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I have and I looked at the rate bill before I bought them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I have and I looked at the rate bill before I bought them. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 When you own a large property or plan to buy one you have to factor in certain things to see if it is actually affordable. The rate bill being one along with things like; can you afford the heating, the insurance, the cost of furnishing a large number of rooms, the maintenance etc etc etc, just because someone has inherited a large property does not mean that can ignore these things. They all need paying and of all of them, the Rates are the main one to pay first in an inheriting situation, just to keep a, possibly leaky, roof over your head. I'll re emphasise that the only reasonable obligation ANY occupants have to pay charges for property services and community services should be solely on a proportionate pro rata basis(the more poopers the more they pay). Forget envy taxes and social engineering as they have no relevance to paying for water consumption,refuse collection or the provision of recreational facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Size, ownership and value of property should have no impact on rates/service charges. They should be predicated entirely on 'the user pays' principle based on the number of residents at each address. We should pay for what we use (with some mandatory payments for the common good), and not constantly soak the people who might be able to afford to pay more. That's not fair, although since it plays well to a certain sector of the electorate I expect we'll continue (increasingly as we approach the next election) to hear MHK's 'fighting' to protect the poor and vulnerable. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.